What Do Fans Want?

[kwanfan1818]

In the current rules, there's a lot more than height and distance that are considered in jump GOEs, so arguing about the final GOE based on that one metric would not be useful. There could be a cutoff for what qualifies as "very good" height and distance for each kind of jump -- if so maybe that measurement could be incorporated directly into the scoring. Although what's very good distance for a loop might not be so good for a toe loop, and what's very good for the second jump in a combination might not be so good for the first jump. So all that would need to be taken into account to make this determination more objective than relying on each judge's visual estimation. More significantly, what's very good for a 5-foot tall junior woman might not be so good for a 6-foot tall senior man. And everything in between -- I don't know how an algorithm could account for that.

For one thing, items called are accessible to the commentators, which would mean they could be represented graphically, like, for example, a red bar under an entrance or exit part of the curve. Then there are the commentators who could describe why despite the overall height and distance, the jump was flawed.

Just last night watching Japanese National videos you could see that the use was to make a point, not for every jump.

They could compare a jump graphic between a six foot senior male or the average junior male jump height to a 4’5” juniors female to make a point, but within the context of a competition, they’d be comparing skaters within that competition or to the skater’s same jump in the last competition (from a database) to make comparison points, even if the point it how physically difficult it would be for skater height A to jump as high as skater height B.

These graphics now show the whole trajectory of the jump, and they can be enhanced. And it shouldn’t matter in an absolute system whether skater A’s jump trajectory is 2/3 the trajectory of skater B, all other things being equal, because skater A is so much shorter, except as an explanation: some athletes are more flexible, others are stronger, others have less natural stamina or higher blood oxygen as athletes who’ve trained the same way or harder, others are less injury prone, others have three part time jobs or are emergency room physicians while others are given a full ride or have wealthy parents, someone is wearing Vera Wang or Madison Chock and someone else used a glue gun to add some beads from Michael’s to an off-the-rack dress from Danskin. The skater who covered a greater height and covers more ice should get a higher score than the other, with the same entrance and exit (clean or both e’s or both <‘s) and same overall trajectory. Some athletes are better than others because of their natural advantages, and some are better despite other athletes’ natural advantages.

 

[AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)]

Produce quality kiss and cries!!!!

In the ladies program, no more Biellman spins for layback, bring back a spiral sequence and get rid of the step sequence in the free program.

Ban all emo music, and anything that starts with Moulin.

 

[gkelly]

For one thing, items called are accessible to the commentators,

The tech panel calls levels for leveled elements (although they don't list the specific features awarded or not awarded). They call jump names with calls for insufficient rotation or wrong edge takeoff. There are also calls for +REP and +SEQ and asterisks for whole elements (or jumps in combinations/sequences) that get no value.

Beyond that, the commentators do not get any information about what the tech panel is thinking and even less about what the judges are thinking regarding GOE. And of course different judges might have different thoughts and give different scores, but what gets shown is the average. The rewards for jump height and distance do not happen automatically once the jump reaches a certain size.

which would mean they could be represented graphically, like, for example, a red bar under an entrance or exit part of the curve. Then there are the commentators who could describe why despite the overall height and distance, the jump was flawed.

Some flaws are obvious to anyone including casual fans (falls, step outs). No need for detailed analysis there.

Some are either evident to the knowledgeable commentators in real time, so they can mark the element to show a problem such as a touchdown of the hand or free foot. Other times it's less obvious but something seems not quite right, so the commentator might want to look back at it to see there was an issue, or might be alerted by a rotation or edge call from the tech panel for that kind of issue.

Wobbles on landing edges, scratchy landings, as well as underrotations, are more of a problem with jumps that don't cover much distance on the landing have much flow out. So if a jump is going to get lower GOE for those reasons, most likely it will also be visibly smaller than the ones that get +3, +4, +5.

But sometimes a landing has a little glitch immediately after the blade touches the ice but then manages to flow out with decent speed. So it might be flagged to show good distance and then a closer look can show small negative issues that could cancel out the positive of very good height and distance.

Anyway, are you arguing in favor broadcasters of singling out height and distance as one factor (among six positive ones and about twenty potential negative ones) to explain why the really big jumps might get higher GOEs than the medium-sized ones, not knowing for sure but taking a good guess that most or all judges awarded the "very good height and distance" bullet for jumps that are objectively bigger?

That's fine, as long as they commentators don't claim that size of the jump tells us anything more than that about that one bullet point.

Or are you arguing that jump size should be an actual measured scoring metric rather than being left up to judges' visual estimation? There are both advantages and disadvantages to that approach, but as of now the ISU has not indicated that they are interested in adopting such measurements into the scoring in the near future.

 

[farahfan]

Produce quality kiss and cries!!!!

In the ladies program, no more Biellman spins for layback, bring back a spiral sequence and get rid of the step sequence in the free program.

Ban all emo music, and anything that starts with Moulin.

So tired of the Moulin. It was fun at first tho.
My dream songs for a pair to skate to are:
Running for your Life, Unsecret.
Carousel, Melanie Martinez.
Souls, TroyBoi.
Probably send the the judges into a tizzy.

 

[tony]

Beyond that, the commentators do not get any information about what the tech panel is thinking and even less about what the judges are thinking regarding GOE. And of course different judges might have different thoughts and give different scores, but what gets shown is the average. The rewards for jump height and distance do not happen automatically once the jump reaches a certain size.

This is not correct for most commentators. They can often see the elements as called and as they are reviewed, as well as a total score before it comes up on the screen. You’ll often hear it in the ISU commentary where they mention how many elements are being reviewed and what the final call was as it’s input, or what the PCS is for a given component.

Anyways, the more I think about this thread and the ‘you’re not the fan they are looking for comment’, I really think anyone who doesn’t care about accurate scoring (UNTIL it affects their favorites, or it has to do with Daniel Grassl, or with Davis/Smolkin, etc) should just stick to gala skates. It’s a sport, after all, and everyone should want accuracy, consistency, and fairness.

 

[On My Own]

What fans most want is "skating insiders" behaving like they're smarter than most while not being able to see Kagiyama's lutz edge and telling them to stick to gala skates, I'm sure.

Not that I would ever attend a competition, even ignoring that it'd be too damn expensive to fly to a different country to watch one, and the nearest country is China of all places, I'd still rather toss my money into a compost pit than be around that.

 

[tony]

What fans most want is "skating insiders" behaving like they're smarter than most while not being able to see Kagiyama's lutz edge and telling them to stick to gala skates, I'm sure.

This is like the eighth time you’ve referred to something I never said. You’re the lamest troll which is why I don’t bother to reply typically except for laugh emoji responses at your stupidity and your backpedaling of your nonsense with the ‘omg I didn’t understand English well enough, please forgive me being a troll’ antics.

I never called myself an ‘insider’ either, for what it’s worth. If you read that elsewhere, take it out on said people. PM me with any other beef you may have rather than repeating the same thing over and over in the midst of random threads.

 

[gkelly]

This is not correct for most commentators. They can often see the elements as called and as they are reviewed, as well as a total score before it comes up on the screen. You’ll often hear it in the ISU commentary where they mention how many elements are being reviewed and what the final call was as it’s input, or what the PCS is for a given component.

That's all true.

But there are no calls for which bullet points the judges are awarding in the GOEs. The commentators can see the average GOEs, but they can't read the judges' minds to know exactly which bullet points each judge did or didn't award. They can make a good guess, but that's all.

 

[tony]

That's all true.

But there are no calls for which bullet points the judges are awarding in the GOEs. The commentators can see the average GOEs, but they can't read the judges' minds to know exactly which bullet points each judge did or didn't award. They can make a good guess, but that's all.

I think the only way this could happen would be if the judges had a list of criteria pop up for each and every element, and in the midst of everything else they are doing, they’d have to check off which criteria they are applying. I’ve noticed judges looking at their screens for an element that has already happened while another one is already starting, so it’s never going to happen as such adding this extra layer of complexity. So we have to guess how one judge got to +4 and the one seated next to them gave -1

I appreciate Hanretty’s commentary so much because he is questioning rotations that are obvious, he’s going over certain criteria that earn skaters higher GOE, he’s mentioning specific bullet points in PCS marking, and so on. I don’t remember any other commentator ever really doing that.

 

[gkelly]

I think the only way this could happen would be if the judges had a list of criteria pop up for each and every element, and in the midst of everything else they are doing, they’d have to check off which criteria they are applying. I’ve noticed judges looking at their screens for an element that has already happened while another one is already starting, so it’s never going to happen as such adding this extra layer of complexity. So we have to guess how one judge got to +4 and the one seated next to them gave -1

Yup

 

[kwanfan1818]

Beyond that, the commentators do not get any information about what the tech panel is thinking and even less about what the judges are thinking regarding GOE. And of course different judges might have different thoughts and give different scores, but what gets shown is the average. The rewards for jump height and distance do not happen automatically once the jump reaches a certain size.

The ISU commentators talk all of the time about which items have been marked for flaws and which other items are under review and how they are resolved. This can be represented easily on the curve diagram. In fact, one of the competitions I watch recently had a list of the elements on screen, IIRC during the replays, with R’s next to the reviewed elements, with the R’s disappearing until they were resolved.

Anyway, are you arguing in favor broadcasters of singling out height and distance as one factor (among six positive ones and about twenty potential negative ones) to explain why the really big jumps might get higher GOEs than the medium-sized ones, not knowing for sure but taking a good guess that most or all judges awarded the "very good height and distance" bullet for jumps that are objectively bigger?

To be clear, the graph does not just represent height and distance, it also represents speed in and out, and the whole trajectory of the jump, the whole being far more than the sum of two parts. And as I said earlier, the calls for the state of the entrances and edges can be represented easily on screen. Commentators already call something clean by their eyes or ! Or< and then say that the panel doesn’t agree, and they also call bobbles and flaws that they don’t think are getting reflected in the scores. Similarly, the also speak about things they think aren’t getting enough credit.

 

[gkelly]

The ISU commentators talk all of the time about which items have been marked for flaws and which other items are under review and how they are resolved. This can be represented easily on the curve diagram. In fact, one of the competitions I watch recently had a list of the elements on screen, IIRC during the replays, with R’s next to the reviewed elements, with the R’s disappearing until they were resolved.

Yes. Those refer to specific technical panel calls.

Height and distance of a jump have nothing to do with tech panel calls. They are not called -- they are estimated by individual judges, who either award the "very good height and distance" bullet point or not. Different judges probably have different cutoff points for what constitutes "very" good.

To be clear, the graph does not just represent height and distance, it also represents speed in and out, and the whole trajectory of the jump, the whole being far more than the sum of two parts.

Again, this has nothing to do with tech panel calls. It's qualitative assessment that each judge determines for themselves.

It's useful information because it explains what judges are probably thinking about a couple of the positive bullet points. But that's all it is.

Similarly, the also speak about things they think aren’t getting enough credit.

Which would include some of the other positive bullets, which are subjective assessments, can't be measured, and aren't noted in the protocols or anything the tech panel calls or is shown to commentators on their screens.

3) effortless throughout (including rhythm in jump combo or sequence)
4) steps before the jump, unexpected or creative entry
5) very good body position from take-off to landing
6) element matches the music

Maybe some judges awarded one of those and different judges awarded a different one, to come up with +3, while the commentator would have given at least two of those. Or maybe most judges gave all three of 4), 5), and 6), but they didn't think the jump was effortless, so by the current rules they can't give more than +3.

The only way we'd know for sure would be to interview every judge, or make them check off bullet points in the computer. As Tony says, not likely to happen.

 

[kwanfan1818]

Height and distance of a jump have nothing to do with tech panel calls. They are not called -- they are estimated by individual judges, who either award the "very good height and distance" bullet point or not. Different judges probably have different cutoff points for what constitutes "very" good.

Again, I never claimed that they did. You argued that height and distance were only two aspects, which is only part of what the curve graphic shows, and that it would be up to the commentators to point out why one jumps might have entry and exit flaws that the other did not. I argued that the tech panel’s calls could be added to the graphic they’d simply need bars under the entrance and exit that showed color coding, which could be removed if cleared on review. It would be pretty clear to a viewer that the entrance and/or exit from skater A was dark red and flawed. Some of those calls affect base level, others impact max score or mandatory deductions, if they are actually taken, since the software doesn’t enforce them.

But I forgot to thank you for the info that they use slo-mo. I thought they were (still?) required to review inreal-time, but were restricted in what they could review.

 

[gkelly]

Again, I never claimed that they did. You argued that height and distance were only two aspects, which is only part of what the curve graphic shows, and that it would be up to the commentators to point out why one jumps might have entry and exit flaws that the other did not. I argued that the tech panel’s calls could be added to the graphic they’d simply need bars under the entrance and exit that showed color coding, which could be removed if cleared on review. It would be pretty clear to a viewer that the entrance and/or exit from skater A was dark red and flawed. Some of those calls affect base level, others impact max score or mandatory deductions, if they are actually taken, since the software doesn’t enforce them.

Yes, that can all be useful information.

The other positive GOE points that are not captured by the curve graphic would also be useful information.

So would other negative points not directly related to the edge and rotation calls. Some of which are obvious, others might not be evident to a new fan until a commentator points them out.

But it will never be everything necessary to understand exactly why a jump ended up with exactly the GOE that it did. Helpful, not definitive.

 

[kwanfan1818]

The Sox’s and lines and other graphics in other sports don’t tell the whole story, either. They engage the audience. Some people see them and want to learn more. They also give commentators more time to explain what’s not on the graphic, instead of having to describe everything the graphic does and hope that it’s understandable.

 

[MacMadame]

Really, though, if we're going to anyone for the demise of the Pac, it should be USC. I was so pleased to see them fall flat on their faces their first season in the B1G.

I really don't care about the Pac-12. Or college football for that matter.

My mom worked at OSU and told me about the Duck vs. Beaver rivalry. I had to pick Beavers because she worked there. But lately even though she doesn't work there, I've been seeing people from OSU and UoO at triathlons and the Duck's tri kit is boring and lame. The Beavers have a better kit in general but it also has a beaver tail so, come on, I have to root for them!

While it’s great to like new and exciting things, there is a lot of old exciting things newer fans just don’t seem to care about…

Most people care about what they experience. Fans who do things like watch old Super Bowl games from before they were born are pretty rare, as an example. I don't see anything wrong with fans who love skating that they have watched and skaters they know and don't care about much before that. But I'm someone who doesn't watch skates over and over. I watch it when it happens and then I'm done and move on to the next comp/performance.

So tired of the Moulin. It was fun at first tho.
My dream songs for a pair to skate to are:
Running for your Life, Unsecret.
Carousel, Melanie Martinez.
Souls, TroyBoi.
Probably send the the judges into a tizzy.

If that's the Kate Bush song, it's already been skated to. IIRC it was a Stranger Things-themed skate.

Anyways, the more I think about this thread and the ‘you’re not the fan they are looking for comment’, I really think anyone who doesn’t care about accurate scoring (UNTIL it affects their favorites, or it has to do with Daniel Grassl, or with Davis/Smolkin, etc) should just stick to gala skates. It’s a sport, after all, and everyone should want accuracy, consistency, and fairness.

So the only way to be a fan is to do it like you do it?? For one thing, gala skates are often throwaways. If you had said "stick to shows, that might be more reasonable but watching competitive skates for their entertainment value is a completely reasonable way to be a fan. It's like watching football because you think the players are hot.

 

[farahfan]

If that's the Kate Bush song, it's already been skated to. IIRC it was a Stranger Things-themed skate.

No it’s a different song

 

[tony]

So the only way to be a fan is to do it like you do it?? For one thing, gala skates are often throwaways. If you had said "stick to shows, that might be more reasonable but watching competitive skates for their entertainment value is a completely reasonable way to be a fan. It's like watching football because you think the players are hot.

Not one bit, but I think it's ridiculous for posters to say I'm not the target audience in "fandom"/shouldn't be 'here' when just about everyone else here.. on Figure Skating Universe of all places, not a random opera forum with one skating thread, has a very loud opinion when the judging doesn't go the way they think it should, when skaters they don't like are held up, when skaters they do like are held down, when any or all of the Russians get the scores that they do, and so on. Almost everyone here suddenly becomes an ice dance expert when it comes to Davis & Smolkin or even Fear & Gibson. They become PCS experts when it came to the Russian women. They become rotation experts when it came to Daniel Grassl but heaven forbid rotations be pointed out for the next person who is equally underrotated. And this has been long-lasting- from Lipinski to Hughes to Nagasu and Zhang to the Russians to now Jason Brown and "how in the world is he getting that PCS when his techincal elements are so weak" even though the two don't have to have major correlation when there aren't falls.

So, in fact, my argument is that people do care about the rules and those details-- but I'd say for a select group, it's only when they want to care or only when their favorite skater is the poor victim of cruel judging. So why is my trying to keep it consistent across the board worse than the Fan X who selectively sees what they want to? Judging by a select few comments, you'd think I'm the only one who ever has paid attention to this stuff.

This is, once again, a judged sport and the results have to make sense or, as we've seen from people time and time again, they claim will leave the fandom of the sport because of the BS judging antics. Or ETA- as I suggested, go to galas (and that means shows and other exhibitions) and enjoy the skating for what it's worth there.

You, for example, know the entire pattern for the required dance by heart this season and you know exactly which set of turns and edges the skaters need to be on to get credit for their levels. You've said so, and you could by all means go into threads and point out exactly where the skaters are losing their levels on such.

 

[Tesla]

Almost everyone here suddenly becomes an ice dance expert when it comes to Davis & Smolkin or even Fear & Gibson. They become PCS experts when it came to the Russian women. They become rotation experts when it came to Daniel Grassl

Do you mean in this thread or on this board? Because I’m pretty sure only a tiny fraction of FSU members post regularly.

 

[tony]

Do you mean in this thread or on this board? Because I’m pretty sure only a tiny fraction of FSU members post regularly.

On the board, of course. I know most members are inactive or have become inactive over the last 20 years. Some that are here haven't watched competitions or shows in the last X years. But they wouldn't really be a focus of what "fans" want.

 

[SkateGuard]

One of the big things I’ve noticed about the newer/younger fans is they have no interest in the history of the sport. Many think Yuzuru Hanyu is the undisputed GOAT or that Nathan VS Yuzu is the only men’s rivalry that matters. Similarly, they seem to forget ice dance existed before Virtue/Moir. I’ve even seen some ignore the brilliance of 90s-early 00s skaters like Michelle Kwan! It’s really amazing.

Even in exhibitions, the younger fans miss out on so much because they can’t be bothered to watch older stuff.

While it’s great to like new and exciting things, there is a lot of old exciting things newer fans just don’t seem to care about…

You're 100% bang on re: this.

One thing I'll point out is that the audiences you see in the arena just don't necessarily line up with the audiences you see on Reddit, X, TikTok and the comment section on YouTube.

At Skate Canada, a large demographic of the fans in the rink were 40+ at the very least.

I've got over 8K followers on Facebook that are interested specifically in the sport's history and according to Meta's analytics, less than 5% of them are under the age of 34. You couldn't find a more knowledgeable, engaged bunch either!

There are definitely really engaged people out there who do care about the sport's history but they aren't the fans that dominate the conversation on some of the other social media sites.

I think there's room for everyone (the more the merrier!!!) but skating fans are a VERY diverse bunch and I don't think there's any one size fits all answer to what fans want. It's not t-shirt cannons though.

 

[gkelly]

I think there's room for everyone (the more the merrier!!!) but skating fans are a VERY diverse bunch and I don't think there's any one size fits all answer to what fans want.

Agreed.

"What fans want" will not be the same for all fans.

I'm sure this is true for all spectator sports and performance disciplines. But probably more true for figure skating because it appeals to both sports fans (those who are interested in the details of technique and those who are more interested in the drama of who will win) and performing arts fans. With many committed fans especially enjoying the combination.

And yes, age can be another dimension along with one group might tend to want different things than another.

So we can each speak for ourselves, or maybe others we know. But we can't speak for "fans" in general.

 

[kwanfan1818]

There are so many art forms and sports where people come in through the "now" -- whether through a Tik Tok video, five minutes of skating on The Wide World of Sports, because their mother liked it, through a feature on a local or national participant, after they were invited to a friend's skating party, etc. -- and only later dig into the history.

I'm more miffed by skaters who have no sense of the history of skating, especially with YouTube. Just like the baseball players who, 15-20 years after Curt Flood sued MLB for free agency, had no clue who he was, ie, the reason they had free agency and their salaries were off the charts.

 

[overedge]

That's very interesting, not least in that it positions fandom primarily as a consumption-focused activity. Coming from an SF/F fandom background (both literature and media), I position it as a creation-focused activity with a transformative component (making fanfic, fanart, fanvids, meta, etc.), which may be why the kind of efforts the ISU and different federations put forward to pull in fans don't resonate with me at all, and in fact are often deeply alienating. The sense that being a fan or participating in fandom requires and indeed equates to spending money on things is alienating in and of itself. To be a fan, to be a participant in any fandom, should require nothing more than a library card or access to free-to-air television, and maybe an internet connection!

I completely agree. The panelists at this event were all in the music industry, so to some extent they are probably thinking of how to monetize fandom at some point. But they all mentioned the creative-focused fan activities you're describing, and I got the impression that they like these because it keeps the fans engaged and interested. And the artists can do things like point to X million followers on social media as evidence of their reach and influence, even if some of those followers never spend a cent on the artist's output.

 

[manhn]

You can be one of those “music ain’t what it to be” folks and still be able to contribute to the music economy. You can buy tickets to that Madonna or Oasis or Stones concert.

Countries that have seen competitive success in skating, particularly in the singles disciplines, have also seen greater interest amongst the general public. How to increase interest in sport when your country sucks or floundering in the sport is gonna be a tough crack.

All of the technical stuff may be about retaining fandom, not so much attracting fans. If people are like me, I become interested in something if a person is winning, or really hot, or an interesting personality. If I become interested enough, I will conduct my own research. I understand the rules of basketball or track and field or swimming or “artistic” gymnastics, but I ain’t gonna watch any of these sports on a frequent basis.

 

[Tak]

ISU did do something for the fans who want to spend nothing: they are streaming on YouTube.

Except this is not available for everybody. I cant access it. In fact, Im annoyed that I only got to see the GP dance events now. We just finished watching Cup of China. Im still waiting for GPF. So as a fan, what I want is access to real time events and a website I can go to and replay them if I cant watch in real time.

 

[Orm Irian]

I got the impression that they like these because it keeps the fans engaged and interested.

Whereas I can't count the number of times I've seen someone say that they're looking for a new canon/fandom because their current one isn't inspiring their creativity any more! For a lot of fans, the creation is the point of fandom, even more than the source canon.

If you (generic you) want fans, the kind of fans that make up a fandom, in my experience you need to give them access to a canon or a narrative that inspires them to create and has open spaces for them to create in, and let them go off and do their fandom thing on their own, where they'll connect with other people who'll enjoy their fanworks and follow them back to their source. But it seems to me that skating federations, like most sports groups, don't actually want a fandom, as such - they want consumers who do what they're told, where they're told and when they're told, and buy what they're told to buy too. It's depressing.

 

[On My Own]

Except this is not available for everybody. I cant access it. In fact, Im annoyed that I only got to see the GP dance events now. We just finished watching Cup of China. Im still waiting for GPF. So as a fan, what I want is access to real time events and a website I can go to and replay them if I cant watch in real time.

You can't buy vpn or find one for free?

 

[On My Own]

But it seems to me that skating federations, like most sports groups, don't actually want a fandom, as such - they want consumers who do what they're told, where they're told and when they're told, and buy what they're told to buy too.

Because it's a sport...?

Does this place need a conversation about fandom versus sports enthusiasts? I thought it was obvious for our purposes that "fan" was the latter.

 

[Karen-W]

You can't buy vpn or find one for free?

Can you refrain from the judgmental questioning of other posters' financial decision-making?